backtop

Print 130 comment(s) - last by Vinas.. on Sep 16 at 2:14 PM

Leaked screenshots from a Best Buy and Microsoft's Windows training program indicate that the company is "educating" employees on why Linux is horrible.  (Source: ZDNet)
Microsoft pulls no punches, but misses on the facts in its humorous training brochure

Typically, it's Apple doing the trash talking in the operating system market with its long running "Get a Mac" series of commercials.  However, an increasingly feisty Microsoft is following up its "Laptop Hunter" commercials with a roast of Linux.

Microsoft and Best Buy's management has been reportedly distributing "training materials" to Best Buy employees, which educate them on Microsoft's view on difference between Linux and Windows.  Reportedly, the idea is for the employees to then share this enlightened viewpoint with their customers.

An employee recently took screenshots of the "educational" training program.  Its introduction reads, "Windows offers your customer choice and compatibility.  A PC sale is not just about the PC, its also about the software and devices you attach to the sale.  Since fewer software applications and devices work with Linux machines, your customers' PC experience will be negatively impacted.  It is also more difficult for you to attach compatible add-ons to the sale."

It goes on to list tables with "Camera, iPod, and MP3 compatibility" and "Printers and scanners compatibility" being described as "many" for Windows and "few" for Linux.  It also lists an ambiguous "Authorized Support" which it claims Linux is lacking, ignoring the fact that many Linux distributions do have support teams.  It also mentions that Linux users can't play games like "World of Warcraft", which Windows users can.  Ironically, Linux users can in fact use WoW within the free WINE.

The screen also humorously complains that Linux doesn't have support for video chat and can't support Windows Live essentials, failing to note that Linux provides a wealth of alternatives.  To top it off, reportedly the training program then quizzes the reader on what they learned.  One question reads "Linux is safer than Windows: ( ) fact ( ) myth".  Answering "fact" earns you a glaring "incorrect" response.

Without question Microsoft has come a long way in security, but it's still a huge stretch to say that Linux is targeted by malware and attacks to an equal or greater extent than Windows. 


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Well...
By Motoman on 9/8/2009 10:04:26 PM , Rating: 5
...OK, so while this may come off as sleazy, let's look at the facts:

1. Virtually every device has Windows drivers. How many have Linux drivers?
1a. ...that the average idiot shopping at BBY could install?

2. Essentially every piece of software ever written runs on Windows. How many applications are written/ported to Linux?
2a. ...and do you really expect the average idiot shopping at BBY to know/use WINE?

3. Sure, Linux might be "safer" than Windows from a malware standpoint...
3a. ...safer because of obscurity, in the same way that Macs have been "safer." Hard to get all that uppity about being less prone to malware infection simply because no one cares enough about you to attack you.

Don't get me wrong folks - I'd LOVE to see Linux get the kind of major application and driver support it takes to make a serious threat against Windows. But the simple fact of the matter is that Linux, for all it's progress, is still an inviable solution for the vast majority of PC users.

So...while it may seem that BBY and MS are going about this in a slimy way, it may be hard to argue their point.




RE: Well...
By sprockkets on 9/8/2009 10:15:21 PM , Rating: 2
The way Linux works is that it either came with a driver, or it doesn't have it at all. Configuring a driver by hand is equally painful.

Of course, there are exceptions. SuSE had drivers for Intel's Wireless N adapter one month after it was released, and are automatically installed if it sees the hardware present. Same for nVidia cards.

On the subject of Games, netbooks can't play any 3d games worth playing, and both Linux and Windows have fun 2d games to play. And Intel based hardware is very well supported in Linux. Web cams? Not so much. Scanners? Hit or miss. Printers? Most are supported.

quote:
3. Sure, Linux might be "safer" than Windows from a malware standpoint... 3a. ...safer because of obscurity, in the same way that Macs have been "safer." Hard to get all that uppity about being less prone to malware infection simply because no one cares enough about you to attack you.


I'm not interested in another flame war with you motoman :)
I think Windows has done far more than others than most people think when it comes to security.

But you don't think Linux is going to suffer a mushroom cloud if they gain market share, do you?


RE: Well...
By Nfarce on 9/9/2009 12:24:54 AM , Rating: 2
I have Ubuntu on an old laptop and desktop and it works fine. However, for power using, video encoding, and gaming, it's Vista/Windows 7 all the way on a high end laptop and custom built gaming rigs.

quote:
On the subject of Games, netbooks can't play any 3d games worth playing


Who in their right mind would even attempt that?

quote:
But you don't think Linux is going to suffer a mushroom cloud if they gain market share, do you?


I've been a Linux user since Red Hat post Y2K. People back then said Linux would eventually cut into Windows market share by a significant amount. So here we are nearly a decade later and while Ubuntu is outstanding for general use, it has a long way to go to cut into the market enough to warrant hacker/virus writer attention, let alone that of real gamers and power users.


RE: Well...
By sprockkets on 9/9/2009 12:49:50 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
quote: On the subject of Games, netbooks can't play any 3d games worth playing Who in their right mind would even attempt that?


Exactly. If you looked at all the slides, you will see Microsoft touting the advantages of Win7 for netbooks, and it makes sense since Netbooks are where Linux is most often installed. That's why it is a moot point.

Of course, if Linux's security was so bad and was not targeted like Motoman says, why does this chart exist?

http://uptime.netcraft.com/perf/reports/performanc...

Windows couldn't even make the top 10 until Win2k3 server.


RE: Well...
By Motley on 9/9/2009 2:36:23 AM , Rating: 2
Well unless you don't count the top 5, which are all Windows 2000. And linux doesn't even show up in the top 25, and only once in the top 50. The other 49 of the top 50 are Windows.


RE: Well...
By yasbane on 9/9/2009 6:05:40 AM , Rating: 2
I clicked on that link on Netcraft and windows2000 was nowhere near the 'top 5' in uptime...and linux was definitely in the top 25, and windows was not '49 of the top 50'

We must be looking at different graphs???

Uptime right?


RE: Well...
By Daemyion on 9/9/2009 7:00:33 AM , Rating: 3
The link posted by sprockkets does not regard uptime, it regards failed requests (how many packets dropped). The top 50 uptime graph :
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html

Shows 1 linux, 3 unknowns, 46 windows server

Uptime, right?


RE: Well...
By gstrickler on 9/9/2009 12:05:54 PM , Rating: 4
If you read the FAQ linked from that page, you'll find this:

Operating systems that do not provide uptime information include;

AIX
AS/400
Compaq Tru64
DG/UX
Linux before kernel version 2.1
Linux on Alpha and IA64 processors
Linux on Intel x86 processor from kernel version 2.5.25 (see below)
MacOS
MacOSX
NT3/Windows 95
NT4/Windows 98
NetBSD/OpenBSD
NetWare
OS/2
OS/390
SCO UNIX
SunOS 4
VM
Additionally HP-UX, Linux, NetApp NetCache, Solaris and recent releases of FreeBSD cycle back to zero after 497 days, exactly as if the machine had been rebooted at that precise point. Thus it is not possible to see a HP-UX, Linux or Solaris system with an uptime measurement above 497 days.

---
That essentially makes their uptime measurement Windows 2000 and later only.


RE: Well...
By Ammohunt on 9/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: Well...
By sprockkets on 9/9/2009 2:53:58 PM , Rating: 4
Consider a few points:

1. Except for a kernel update, no Linux system needs a reboot for any patches.
2. Services such as ftp or http via Apache need only be bounced, and at least in SuSE (though I believe all do this) once you apply a patch that requires bouncing, it will automatically happen and the downtime is seconds. This will only sever any connections at the time. This is done when traffic is low to none.
3. Windows Vista and later have a feature which updates do not even require bouncing, though they do not implement this on typical home updates apparently. On server updates, someone else can comment on.
4. The front end proxy, running squid usually, does all the grunt work of protection.


RE: Well...
By jstern on 9/9/2009 3:58:21 PM , Rating: 2
I will gladly supply uptimes of production linux and unix boxes that exceed 200+ days. In fact most corporations try to avoid reboots to achieve 4 9's of reliability. And if you need 5 9's, then long uptimes are essential. It is quite normal for Oracle RAC nodes to run for months or years with out a reboot.


RE: Well...
By Yawgm0th on 9/9/2009 7:08:17 PM , Rating: 3
When you vocationally move past the helpdesk or whatever sort of armchair administration you're touting you can start to make claims like this.

Server uptime is dependent on many factors. Many servers can reasonably require 99.999% availability.

As an example, we have an SCO OpenServer 5 box with an average uptime of... oh, four years maybe. we're talking availability nearing six nines. It's been in service a long time. The ancient OS has multiple published remote exploits, but it's not a security risk for us, and there are more reasons to leave it running until it dies than not.

(Random aside: This is an IBM P2 box that has been running for the better part of a decade. It shouldn't work. I love a well-built server.)

That's an extreme example, but my point stands. The role of the server, operating system, network environment, and business needs can all vastly change the desired uptime for a server. There is no magical best practice of "servers must be patched and rebooted on XYZ schedule". If you have a professor or someone telling you otherwise, they're just wrong. :)


RE: Well...
By croc on 9/9/2009 8:12:07 PM , Rating: 2
Uh, spoken like a person that has never administered any real unix servers. Most patches for most unix systems do not require a reboot, just a 'maintenance' service level then a restart. Many patches for apps running on unix only require being installed over the older version, then the main process needs a SIG HUP to restart that process. Most unix machines are internally redundant, so if a processor or PSU dies, they are just replaced then put back online. I had a pair of internal DNS servers that had an 'uptime' of over 6 years.


RE: Well...
By slowdefiance on 9/9/2009 9:27:12 AM , Rating: 3
Netcraft uptime FAQ Linux 2.6 and Freebsd 6

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/accuracy.html#hz1000


RE: Well...
By tmouse on 9/9/2009 8:17:20 AM , Rating: 2
He did not say Linux had bad security, he said it appears so much better because of a lack of desire to break it (BIG difference). This is the honest truth, think about it logically which would be harder to damage or infiltrate a closed system where you are basically poking in a stick in and hoping to see a result or a system where you can get access to all of the base code?. Add to that all of the different components that are developed and supported by different groups and I'm willing to bet IF someone really wanted to breach Linux security they could do it in a manner that would be virtually impossible to detect. Now the up side is with all of the versions of components available any true exploit would probably only hit a small population with that exact configuration. There is minimal at best regression testing since there is really no one central source for it. Microsoft is a BIG target and probably has at least 1000x more people trying to crack into or damage it than any other OS, that is why there are more viruses and such. I'm not saying they do not have more than their fair share of sloppy programmers (remember all of the easily preventable buffer overrun problems), but I'm 100% positive any other system would be in the same situation given the determination of people to damage it. Charts about up time simply do not address any of this, you can have better up time and fewer attacks because you are more secure OR because no one is really trying, they simply do not address the issue.


RE: Well...
By wempa on 9/9/2009 12:33:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is the honest truth, think about it logically which would be harder to damage or infiltrate a closed system where you are basically poking in a stick in and hoping to see a result or a system where you can get access to all of the base code?


Whether a system is open or closed has nothing to do with security. If that were the case, then security by obscurity would work. Any security expert can verify this. In any case, you're right that there is much more value in targeting Windows. Over 90% of the computers are running it. Plus, there are way more morons running Windows than Linux since typically only those with technical knowledge install Windows. If a person is looking to gain anything by attacking a PC, they want to go after the biggest percentage of users with the lowest technical knowledge.


RE: Well...
By tmouse on 9/10/2009 8:21:42 AM , Rating: 3
Sure it does, while it is not the sole determination if you had the code for Microsoft's OS there would be even more intrusions and they would probably be far harder to detect. Of course security by obscurity will work, to not believe this would imply there is no correlation between the number of people trying to break a program and the amount of time needed to break in. Now obviously that is not the sole factor, so a badly written program will obviously be easier but if you had the same program and 100 programmers of roughly equal abilities and you divided them into a group of 2 and 98 the larger group would have a greater probability of getting in first. That is not what I was saying with regards to Linux. As you pointed out its motivation not numbers. There is simply NO real motivation to find Linux exploits with the majority of hackers (I'm not saying there are not some small groups of Microsoft fan boys and total anarchists who may have an interest in breaking Linux but I bet the numbers are orders of magnitude less). By and large Linux boxes are only used by people with the know how to set them up and the smarts to keep them up to date, as the perception that Microsoft is "weak" has grown and simpler installations of Linux have sprouted up believe me I have seen a lot of Linux boxes by people without a clue that have never updated anything since they set it up (stupid comes in all varieties. I'm certain if someone wanted to write a Linux virus it could be FAR more dangerous and harder to detect.


RE: Well...
By ersts on 9/9/2009 12:53:46 PM , Rating: 1
Not sure why you say there is a lack of desire to break in.

The graph helps you to see that when it comes to servers , Linux is heavily used, and servers are MUCH more exposed because they do not have the luxury of running with firewalls; they actually have to serve web pages up to people.

That's not to say Linux and even OSX were hacked due to Apache and PHP exploits though, but it does show that Linux is secure enough to be used for production use. The saying "There just isn't enough market share to bother attacking" is just flat out untrue.

It's quite easy to come up with major pwnage of Microsoft's IIS in the past. Now let's all try to recall any major outbreak of malware for Linux/Apache.


RE: Well...
By tmouse on 9/10/2009 7:57:51 AM , Rating: 2
You simply do not get it, its the OS that is targeted NOT the machines be they servers or workstations. MICROSOFT is the target. There is really little interest in bringing down Linux boxes since it really has no Big Corporate persona. There is no real MOTIVATION. THAT is what is driving the sheer volume of effort into trying to find faults and bring down Microsoft boxes. I have seen MANY Linux web servers with misconfigured security that would allow access to folders that should not be. The reason they are not affected is simple, unless the site itself offends someone there is NO MOTIVE. Now many kids believe they can prove themselves by using tools that are made available to bring down Microsoft boxes because Microsoft = "THE MAN". No one is really developing tools to do this for Linux. No one on this thread said Linux is not secure enough for production use, I DID say showing up time proves NOTHING, now if you can show a chart indicating equal attack attempts per unit of time and the Linux box stayed up while the Microsoft one went down then you show a stronger security ability. If no one is trying to get in then you say NOTHING about security.


RE: Well...
By sprockkets on 9/9/2009 12:51:42 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Well...
By ioannis on 9/9/2009 7:17:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Web cams? Not so much


The majority of web-cams are UVC devices, which like mass storage devices, are supported in Linux without the need of special drivers (that's true for any OS by the way)


RE: Well...
By ersts on 9/9/2009 12:18:13 PM , Rating: 2
To some degree, yes. I stuck in a web cam made by Logitech, the appropriate module was available but not loaded, and required an alias or whatever it is called. But it doesn't look as universal as it seems.

Next required app support. Its there, but it is nowhere as easy as windows or OSX.


RE: Well...
By PrinceGaz on 9/9/2009 11:49:54 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
On the subject of Games, netbooks can't play any 3d games worth playing


I have to disagree with you there. They are quite capable of playing older 3D games, and there are a great many of those still worth playing. Probably the main limitation of a typical netbook is its 1024x600 screen, effectively limiting you to 800x600 in practice, but that's no problem as that was a very common resolution in the past (and is still higher than the SDTV resolution of the Wii), and the GPU which if a GMA950 is probably around GeForce 2GTS levels (perfectly fine for 800x600) or if a GMA500 more like GeForce 2MX levels (not so good and therefore best avoided, but still more than enough for the older/less demanding titles).

An Atom in the 1.2-1.6GHz range is roughly like a P3/Athlon in the 0.8-1.0GHz range so there is plenty of CPU power, and with Windows XP and 512MB or more RAM, the only problem there are possible compatibility issues with XP when running the oldest 3D games (but Win98 compatibility mode and/or a noCD bugfix can solve that in most cases).

Seriously, there are heaps of great 3D games you can play on netbooks; just because they're older games doesn't mean they are no longer worth playing. That would be like saying older movies are no longer worth watching, or older books no longer worth reading. Your statement pretty much implies that every game released before about 2002 was rubbish, because a netbook with a GMA950 will play every game up until about 2002 pretty well, along with a good few released later.


RE: Well...
By Yawgm0th on 9/10/2009 12:00:12 AM , Rating: 1
You're spot on.

Most netbooks will play Warcraft III (ergo, DotA), WoW, and Heroes of Newearth ("DotA" standalone). Those are 2003, 2004, 2009 (maybe 2010...), respectively. I can hardly find PC gamers these days in the real world who don't play at least one of the above games with great frequency. I can't get any good LAN gaming going without it being DotA or something older, these days. I mean, why play a spiffy shooter with three other people when you can play a classic RTS or a fun mod like DotA with ten others?

Accessibility is important. Some of the best and most popular games will easily run on netbooks. A game-capable netbook costs less than a mid-range video card and will still play some of the best games on the market.

And come to think of it, I've played Battlefield 2 and F.E.A.R. reasonably on a system with:
1GHz Athlon T-bird
512MB DDR333
Radeon 9600XT
40GB 7200RPM hard drive

There are netbooks with better hardware out there. If we see more of them with Nvidia graphics instead of Intel, things will get even better.


RE: Well...
By hybridr6 on 9/8/2009 10:14:37 PM , Rating: 3
Not to question you, but if you have used any major distro recently you would have realised that you didn't need to install a single driver. Albeit a few wifi cards may need to be manually installed. As to what programs are written for Windows and Linux? VLC comes to mind, but most applications have Linux alternatives that give the same and sometimes better performance/features than their Windows counterparts. Linux is not just safer because of obscurity. I would wager that a large majority of servers with Internet access are running some sort of *nix. Although Linux, Windows, and Mac are all susceptible to some malware since they all use web browsers, flash, java, etc.

Has anyone ever watched a Windows, Mac, and Linux box on wireshark? The Windows and Mac boxes tend to continuously chatter away.


RE: Well...
By B3an on 9/9/2009 12:03:10 AM , Rating: 2
There are many Linux alternative to software on Windows but i often find them to be vastly inferior.
For example theres nothing that can match Photoshop, Flash, Illustrator, or the whole Adobe CS4 Software Suite, and it's integration for my graphic design needs, GIMP is joke in comparison.

I simply can not do some of the work i do on Linux, or the quality of it would be limited.
It's not just the average joe that Linux is not ready for, and i wanted to point that out.


RE: Well...
By ioannis on 9/9/2009 7:26:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
For example theres nothing that can match Photoshop, Flash, Illustrator, or the whole Adobe CS4 Software Suite


and you can add to you list most of the CAD tools for architects and engineers, but who on their right mind would run any of those on a netbook (which is what this subject is all about). It's the same as the argument about WoW or any 3D intensive game. The hardware is inadequate, the screen is too small.


RE: Well...
By JPForums on 9/9/2009 9:25:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
For example theres nothing that can match Photoshop, Flash, Illustrator, or the whole Adobe CS4 Software Suite


If you actually use the full capability of these programs then you are correct. However, I consider these somewhat special purpose and can't justify the price of CS4 for home use much less a netbook. I'll stick with cheaper software that can still get the job done. For business purposes, if the business can afford CS4, then they should be able to afford a computer to go with it. Even if it is a home business, I'd want to separate the computer I use for my business from the one I use for casual/home use.

quote:
and you can add to you list most of the CAD tools for architects and engineers, but who on their right mind would run any of those on a netbook


Again, CAD tools seem somewhat special purpose and expensive. (Some of the cheaper tools actually do have open source alternatives) I agree with you sentiment that these are horrible programs to pretend you can run on a netbook. Although, I would add that the expense of such software, like CS4, needs to be justified. In my opinion, valid justification could also justify getting a separate system from your casual/home use machine to run it.

Note: My comments apply whether your casual use system runs Linux or Windows, so it isn't really a defense for Linux. Rather, I'm just trying to put the argument into perspective (granted my perspective can be at odds with others). Also, while I have a Linux box in my house that I use somewhat frequently, my main system is a Windows box. Long live PC gaming (Don't try this on your netbook).


RE: Well...
By B3an on 9/10/2009 12:27:49 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry i should of said i did not mean Netbook or Laptop, and was talking purely talking about software on Linux.

I'm a professional graphic and website designer, there is a large amount of people out there like me, i mean all graphics and sites have to be made by someone, and i was saying that Linux is not at all usable for people like me because of nothing that can seriously compete with Adobe products.
Same for digital artists and serious 3D modelling/rendering.


RE: Well...
By Motoman on 9/9/2009 1:48:47 AM , Rating: 5
To be completely honest, every once in a while I download a recent distro and give it a shot.

Full disclosure: I effectively don't know dick about Linux, although I am what most people would say is an "expert" at Windows and PC hardware. I know barely enough Unix commands to really screw something up.

Every time I try, something goes horribly wrong, and I give up. It's not easy. Even for me. And if it's not drop-dead, can-do-it-in-my-sleep easy for me, then it's utterly impossible for, I don't know, maybe 95% of the total PC consumer base.

Linux needs to get to the point where people who don't know dick about it can install it with ease, can find and install drivers for their devices with ease, and can find all the apps they want and install them with ease. That is a pipe dream. Maybe always will be. I hope not...but it doesn't look good.


RE: Well...
By dark matter on 9/9/2009 2:42:55 AM , Rating: 2
I was looking at mediatomb the other day and thought "hey, I have a spare tower, lets give this thing a go". Installing Linux is straightforward granted. Its installing anything after this I start to get problems with. And after looking at the install instructions for mediatomb....


RE: Well...
By JPForums on 9/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: Well...
By noirsoft on 9/9/2009 12:54:15 PM , Rating: 2
So similar to my own experiences. I used to have a machine running (or, rather trying to run ) Linux, from 1995 (Slackware 1.0) up to about 2004 (Suse 9.something) and the machines never worked as well as a Windows machine.

I finally gave up when my last Suse machine rendered itself unbootable if I did a package update during install. When I let it install form the CD, then do a package update, it wiped out the Suse login screen and gave me the default X login screen, and no way to get ithe good one back. At that point, I said enough was enough.


RE: Well...
By wempa on 9/9/2009 1:03:41 PM , Rating: 2
I can definitely see where you are coming from. I am a big fan of Linux, but it's still not simple to use for the inexperienced users. Sure, they have some great Linux installers now, but there is still a lot to know about using Linux. It's much different from using Windows. Unfortunately, the Windows ease of use is also what leads to so many security issues.


RE: Well...
By japlha on 9/9/2009 1:59:23 PM , Rating: 2
I'm like you but I know a lot about Unix to really screw things up. I work on Unix systems all day.

Every once in a while I'll install a linux distro just to see where it's at. Installation is usually pain free but I inevitably run into software and hardware issues at some point. Using yum or apt doesn't always resolve every software dependency and I'm back to searching the web for some obscure library for my correct kernel version. I can do it but it's not worth the time. To expect the average user to do this is ridiculous.

I like the idea of Linux and hope it will eventually have Windows equivalent software/hardware support but I've got things to do other than configuring my OS ad nauseum.


RE: Well...
By superkdogg on 9/8/2009 11:52:50 PM , Rating: 5
What makes your post accurate is that you're talking about BBY customers. Most people walking into a Best Buy looking for a "CPU" probably couldn't succeed in Linux. If they pick up a new HP "hard drive" that didn't have any Windows installed, many would be completely lost simply because it's the least bit unfamiliar.

Basically, if you're techie/geeky enough to be looking for Linux, you're not looking to buy a pre-built, proprietary machine from a big box store.


RE: Well...
By JediJeb on 9/9/2009 2:15:09 PM , Rating: 2
Reminds me of someone I work with who was complaining that the CD in her HardDrive didn't work. Took me a while to figure out a HardDrive was the computer case lol. Most people I know are like this, if you can't turn it on like a TV or microwave and just have it run everything they need without installing anything then they think it is broke.


RE: Well...
By themaster08 on 9/9/2009 5:39:58 AM , Rating: 2
I honestly don't find this sleazy in the slightest.

Microsoft is posting blatant facts that can't be argued with. Albeit they all favour Microsoft, each point is totally valid. Ultimately this will allow less informed customers to make more informed decisions when puchasing a computer.

To those whom these facts are new to, those people obviously have no clue about computers. Almost everyone who posts on this site will already be aware of these facts, but for those with absolutely no comuter knowledge, it will be very useful information.


RE: Well...
By m4elstrom on 9/9/2009 10:20:24 AM , Rating: 2
WOW..... I would had respected what you are saying (tho i don't agree with it), until you mentioned facts... Let's talk about facts shall we? first of all the idea of obscurity and open source (for exploits) in relation with security is a semi-valid point but it fails... bad.

Linux is secure not because is more '1337', or because it has less users. Its called ARCHITECTURE. OS Architecture is well implemented in Linux: that is in layers as it should be. Windows (any version) is a mess in terms of architecture and implantation.

Second, you should learn that any fact coming from a salesman (best buy, m$, car vendor) is at best a half truth and in the best case scenario the disadvantages that the product carries are of no concern to you; and that's the point the product works for you because you don't mind about its flaws, but not everybody will be so forgiving.


RE: Well...
By wempa on 9/9/2009 12:54:19 PM , Rating: 3
^^^^ What he said

Seriously, those are not real facts at all. They are wrong or misleading on a number of them, including the "authorized support" one. People use Windows because it's easy to use, has a huge amount of software and supports pretty much any peripheral. But, don't even try to compare the 2 operating systems on a technical level. Linux (Unix in general) was designed from the ground up to be a networked operating system and has a very good security model. Windows started as a single user OS and has basically been patched all along.


RE: Well...
By themaster08 on 9/10/2009 4:52:00 AM , Rating: 2
With further thought, I do agree with both you and the poster above on the specific points you made.

My original post was generally related to the points listed in the first image so I didn't consider the safety aspect in the second image. I forgot to mention this in my initial post.

Now I have thought about it a little more, I have to agree with you on authorised support.

With that said though, most people when their computers fail, they take them to the local computer repair shop. There is more chance of the repair shop worker(s) having more knowledge on diagnosing and repairing a Windows based machine than a Linux one, due to obvious reasons.

I do believe that every other point holds truth. The only point that lets Linux down for me personally is driver support/configuration.


RE: Well...
By Kakao on 9/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: Well...
By erikstarcher on 9/9/2009 11:03:52 AM , Rating: 1
Are you comparing a new release of Fedora to an 8 year old release of Windows, or is that an 8 year old Fedora core? Try installing Win 7 and you will see that you need to install few if any drivers for your system. Try and install an 8 year old Fedora release and see how hard it is to get your hardware to work.


RE: Well...
By callmeroy on 9/9/2009 8:20:48 AM , Rating: 2
You are a grumpy SOB aren't you?

Now folks who merely shop at store are "idiots"?

So everyone's supposed to magically have all knowledge of all things? :>

I suppose if YOU go shopping in some specialty store selling goods that pertain to something you are new to you are then the idiot?

Idiot has a more derogative connotation than just ill-informed.


RE: Well...
By HelToupee on 9/9/2009 9:46:31 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
1. Virtually every device has Windows drivers. How many have Linux drivers? 1a. ...that the average idiot shopping at BBY could install?


So, how's that whole "Insert floppy to install RAID drivers" grabbing you right now?


RE: Well...
By Motoman on 9/9/2009 10:29:37 AM , Rating: 4
Pretty good. In my experience, the vast majority of people can manage to correctly insert a floppy most of the time.

Trying to install/configure a driver in Linux that didn't come with that distro? It's not exactly "just put the floppy in."


RE: Well...
By rbclemen on 9/9/2009 4:51:35 PM , Rating: 2
>1. Virtually every device has Windows drivers. How many have Linux drivers?

The devices that are supported by an OS on the day of its release is not the only issue. In the recent past device manufacturers have been told that drivers must be certified by Microsoft to be included, and should be certified in order to avoid any installation issues for end users (the "This driver is not certified" pop-up). Although any links that I used to be able to find concerning this process are now missing, it is safe to assume that Microsoft still charges money for its WHQL certification. So the only way for a device manufacturer to ensure its hardware is supported is to pay Microsoft money. Of course they are going to. They also have to pay for the driver development kit if they want to know how to write the driver. In the Free Software world, all they really have to do is write down how the device works and send that email and one or two of the device in question to interested Linux developers and it is likely their hardware will receive Kernel support. Why they wouldn't do that is up to them.

>2. Essentially every piece of software ever written runs on Windows. How many applications are written/ported to Linux?

Not exactly true. It is true that most applications that are available for purchase now are Windows only, followed by Mac I would assume. However, apps available for purchase account for a small percentage of the apps available for computers in general, and an almost un-measurably small percentage of the total amount of software code written by programmers.

>3. Sure, Linux might be "safer" than Windows from a malware standpoint...

Linux, and every Unix based OS including OSX is safer because it enforces a user privilege system. On all versions of Windows up to and including XP (I have little experience with Vista) there are user accounts that are "limited", i.e. that cannot access system configuration or affect the user experience for any other user, yet many common, everyday pieces of software--including most advanced games, some internet apps, and other common packages will not be able to function when loaded as a limitted user. And there is no reason whatsoever why 3d games should be given permissions that allow them to make system-wide changes to the OS, except that the security model of the OS was broken, and the programs couldn't function otherwise. User apps in Linux and OSX are not granted those permissions because the apps don't require them to operate.


RE: Well...
By Yawgm0th on 9/10/2009 12:36:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In the recent past device manufacturers have been told that drivers must be certified by Microsoft to be included, and should be certified in order to avoid any installation issues for end users (the "This driver is not certified" pop-up). Although any links that I used to be able to find concerning this process are now missing, it is safe to assume that Microsoft still charges money for its WHQL certification.
No assumption needed. That is a fact. I worked for a small hardware company and we didn't get our drivers certified for that very reason. Taking an extra 20 seconds on a helpdesk call or out of a user's day has virtually no perceived cost, so why spend $1 for Microsoft's scheme?

quote:
So the only way for a device manufacturer to ensure its hardware is supported is to pay Microsoft money. Of course they are going to. They also have to pay for the driver development kit if they want to know how to write the driver. In the Free Software world, all they really have to do is write down how the device works and send that email and one or two of the device in question to interested Linux developers and it is likely their hardware will receive Kernel support. Why they wouldn't do that is up to them.
You can write Windows drivers without paying for any kind of compiler or development tools. "Free" software and freeware are just as prevalent, if not more so in the Windows world. The OS isn't open source, but many of the APIs are well-documented and lots of software for Windows is.

quote:
Not exactly true. It is true that most applications that are available for purchase now are Windows only, followed by Mac I would assume. However, apps available for purchase account for a small percentage of the apps available for computers in general, and an almost un-measurably small percentage of the total amount of software code written by programmers.
I disagree. I would wager that most software applications (not all code = software. I write VBScript and BASH, but I'm no developer) are paid, and even most freeware is for Windows. Yes, there is a huge library of open source software, but there is also a tremendous amount of third-party Windows software, open or not.

And anyway, if you want to be picky about it, "Linux" is not a platform anymore than "Windows" is. The number of applications that are available on any given Linux distribution as binaries pales in comparison to what Windows has. Once you get into compiling code -- which you almost invariably have to as you install third-party software on a Linux system -- then it's all moot. So much of the code that "works" in Linux (so many apps require compiler modifications to work/install properly on some distros) also "works" in Windows once compiled.

quote:
Linux, and every Unix based OS including OSX is safer because it enforces a user privilege system. On all versions of Windows up to and including XP (I have little experience with Vista) there are user accounts that are "limited", i.e. that cannot access system configuration or affect the user experience for any other user, yet many common, everyday pieces of software--including most advanced games, some internet apps, and other common packages will not be able to function when loaded as a limitted user. And there is no reason whatsoever why 3d games should be given permissions that allow them to make system-wide changes to the OS, except that the security model of the OS was broken, and the programs couldn't function otherwise. User apps in Linux and OSX are not granted those permissions because the apps don't require them to operate.


Actually, your understanding of Windows user account privileges is flawed. Limited user accounts in Windows, conceptually, provide the exact same security as any non-sudoer, non-root account in Linux. Windows has been know to have more elevation-of-privileges exploits, but even on Windows these are relatively rare. The problem with Windows is that nearly every (> 99.999%) home user uses full admin accounts for everything. In a well-run environment based on Active Directory or even other directory services, the security disadvantages to Windows are reduced almost entirely to remote exploits and elevation of privileges.

Vista actually made tremendous progress towards solving this problem. However, a mouse-click or two pretty much defeats the changes to user account privileges. But it's progress, and in a well-run IT department it's still rock-solid if you have your network secured at the necessary OSI layers.

Also, I completely disagree with you even mentioning OSX in there. Darwin on its own, and really almost any BSD variant, has a solid user rights system in place. OSX, however, basically changes it to a Vista-like system. Privilege elevation is much easier than a true NIX system, and elevation exploits are more common.

It, like Windows, is also bloatier. If there is one fundamental concept of IS security, it's that features and security are opposites. More features invariably means more possible security holes.

The wonderful truth of the industry is that no matter what operating system is top dog, there will always be viruses, worms, trojans, scareware, spyware, adware, and everything in between. Code is rarely perfect, users are rarely (never?) perfect, and even IT professionals are rarely perfect.


RE: Well...
By rbclemen on 9/10/2009 1:39:32 AM , Rating: 2
First of all, a very well conceived and articulated response. Thank you for that.

In response to your first statement as it relates to Windows 7, it is quite unlikely that the hardware that your company developed will be supported "right out of the box" under Windows 7, as your drivers were not certified. Of course uncertified drivers can still be installed, but now we are requiring the second step.

>I disagree. I would wager that most software applications (not all code = software. I write VBScript and BASH, but I'm no developer) are paid, and even most freeware is for Windows. Yes, there is a huge library of open source software, but there is also a tremendous amount of third-party Windows software, open or not.

Of course most developers are paid. My reference is exactly that most software code that is written is not included in commercially available software. It is specially developed code commissioned for a specific purpose, that was never intended for commercial distribution. As an example, everything that runs the Google search engine other than the underlying kernel (which I believe is still Linux) was written by paid developers, but their code has never been packaged into a retail or enterprise level package for resale or licensing. Virtually all "expert system" software that runs big business is the same. Otherwise I agree with the rest of your statement.

>Limited user accounts in Windows, conceptually, provide the exact same security as any non-sudoer, non-root account in Linux. Windows has been know to have more elevation-of-privileges exploits, but even on Windows these are relatively rare.

That is true, and the rest of your statement is also true. But I have installed games on Windows 2000 and Windows XP computers and tried to run them as an unprivileged user, and was specifically informed that these programs would not run in the non-privileged environment. Having to use a privileged user account to play games because the game won't run without it represents a sad security model for an OS. Also calling the account "limited" will specifically drive uneducated users away from them. In Linux ALL accounts do not have the privileges unless they are needed, and certain accounts can be denied access to prvileged execution entirely.


RE: Well...
By Yawgm0th on 9/9/2009 6:52:10 PM , Rating: 2
This is one of the most well-informed, reasonable posts I've seen on Dailytech. +6

Let's be realistic. Linux is good and in many ways a viable alternative to Windows, but it's not quite ready to be a serious desktop/laptop alternative for the average user.

I love Linux and I wish it were there, but I'm not among the fanatics who will make spirited, but ridiculous defenses of Linux's viability in this market. It's improving and has definitely come a long way, but we're not there yet.


RE: Well...
By Moishe on 9/12/2009 7:25:11 PM , Rating: 2
As I Linux and Windows user I have to say that those two screenshots are accurate.

Microsoft shouldn't be bashed for marketing, which is exactly what this is. This is MS pointing out their advantages, of which there are many.

Linux seems really nice at first because it installs easily and as long as you want the basics (what it has a pretty interface for) it will be easy. If something doesn't install right or is not supported you can try to be a good user and figure it out, you're screwed. Finding support is difficult. You're left to forums with snobby Linux users, vague answers, and delayed replies.

That being said, I use Linux because it has it's uses. For Best Buy customers, Windows or Mac PCs are all that they can handle.


RE: Well...
By Vinas on 9/16/2009 2:14:03 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
1. Virtually every device has Windows drivers. How many have Linux drivers?
You'd be surprised to learn that most of the mainstream devices work with Linux out of the box. I'll ignore your comment about drivers, because Linux doesn't really have drivers. They have modules.

quote:
2. Essentially every piece of software ever written runs on Windows. How many applications are written/ported to Linux?
Ever written, really? Linux typically has several solutions to virtually every Windows program written. For the ones that don't work use WINE (it's not that hard... there is a start button in ubuntu so stick to that).

quote:
3. Sure, Linux might be "safer" than Windows from a malware standpoint... 3a. ...safer because of obscurity, in the same way that Macs have been "safer."
This is an untrue and ignorant statement. Linux is fundamentally more secure than Windows and always will be. In twenty years I have only ever gotten infected once with linux and the clean up was a breeze. The infection only happened because I used a weak user account password so there was no damage done. Just delete and recreate the user account. How many times do you think the typical Windows user will be infected over twenty years? Seriously!

quote:
Don't get me wrong folks - I'd LOVE to see Linux get the kind of major application and driver support it takes to make a serious threat against Windows.
It is serious, last I checked Linux had about 8% of the market. How much was Micro$ofts share is anyones guess... Luckily the Linux and open source movement doesn't really get hurt by Microsoft spreading blasphemy! I've faith that people are smart enough to make their own decisions once they learn the truth.

-- open your source, open your mind!


tough choice
By Ben on 9/8/2009 10:46:16 PM , Rating: 4
Let's see, I want to play WOW on my PC.

Would I rather spend 4 hours trying to get WINE working on my Linux box and pouring through readme's and online help files? And then spend the rest of night installing WOW and trying to figure out why my hardware doesn't work?

Or would I rather spend 10 minutes installing the game and then the other 6 hours playing.

Hmmm, ya I can see how the choice would be tough.




RE: tough choice
By SavagePotato on 9/8/2009 10:51:34 PM , Rating: 1
Shame shame, you forgot the 5 hours downloading all the patches and updating the game.

But you can play Second Life and have cyber lovins with furries on Linux while you wait.


RE: tough choice
By GaryJohnson on 9/9/2009 1:39:46 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
I want to play WOW

That appears to be your main problem.


RE: tough choice
By Swamp on 9/9/2009 2:00:03 AM , Rating: 5
you should of stopped typing right after saying WOW. 6 hrs of playing WOW, go outside get a life. I'd cut my wrists after playing 5 mins of that crappy game.


RE: tough choice
By callmeroy on 9/9/2009 8:25:08 AM , Rating: 3
The game that's so crappy it shattered all sales records of any PC MMO that has yet existed, and still enjoys the largest subscription base of any MMO currently available.

Now that aside...6 hours is a bit much....lol

And yes, I will conceed with the joking on the game there are some folks that take the game ....waaaaaaaaaaay to seriously and need to breathe some fresh air.


RE: tough choice
By fatedtodie on 9/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: tough choice
By callmeroy on 9/10/2009 1:00:52 PM , Rating: 3
Get over myself?

Since when is stating a fact like sales figures or subscription rate that can be proven by records kept by the company and then they publish that information someone needing to get over themself?

In fact you fail to see the hypocrisy in your very own comment -- since we merely share two opposing opinions. My OPINION is I find the game entertaining , your opinion is you don't. Those are each our own rights to have. However sales and subscription figures are NOT opinions its based on data, fact.

I agree with you ...when does popular = good? My reply based on all your comments (meaning you and the others trashing the game) was to say "well hey some folks obviously don't think so since they are subscribing and playing in record numbers!".

So get over yourself with getting riled up enough in your hatred over a game.

:)

And btw....I've been a PC gamer for over 20 years...I've played from classics like Infocom games, Bard Tale, M.U.L.E, up through more popular ones like Half Life, Doom, Counter Strike, Fear, Civ, etc. etc. and the list goes on and on......

So I know quality gaming plenty....

finally if folks are gonna bash something --- don't cry when someone actually shares a differing opinion..that's friggin amazing isn't it?


RE: tough choice
By jonmcc33 on 9/9/2009 10:04:34 AM , Rating: 2
You should have stopped typing right after typing "should of". Kids and their poor grammar these days. Sheesh! JK

WOW is like a sucking vacuum. It sucks the life right out of people and turns them into super geeks with pale white skin.


RE: tough choice
By Entropy42 on 9/9/2009 11:16:53 AM , Rating: 2
Right on brother!

I f**king hate it when people spend their free time doing things that they enjoy. What a bunch of fat, no-life, moron losers. I almost fell into that trap myself, but luckily you saved me. I was all set to move back into my parents basement as well. Can you please post me a list of approved activities?


dumb employees
By boogerlad on 9/8/2009 9:48:02 PM , Rating: 5
The majority of Best Buy's employees are too stupid and probably have never heard of linux.




RE: dumb employees
By sieistganzfett on 9/8/2009 9:55:26 PM , Rating: 2
they are quizzed on everything they "learn" from those 10 minute instructional bits. it's how they rack up useless points of experience. they have it for the computers, for the audio dept. etc. I'm not surprised they are trained on this one side about PC running windows. I used WINE, it's come a long way over the years.


RE: dumb employees
By epobirs on 9/9/2009 12:25:52 AM , Rating: 2
Best Buy stores have stocked the more commercial Linux distros since the 90s. It isn't entirely alien to them.


RE: dumb employees
By jonmcc33 on 9/9/2009 10:24:44 AM , Rating: 2
That is product that merely sat on a shelf. Real Linux fanatics wouldn't pay for their OS. So that leaves the 0.0001% curious that looked and passed on to getting Windows 95 instead.

Everything I have known from Best Buy employees is that they are young and stupid teenagers/college kids that can't get a real job.

Geek Squad employees are even worse because they require A+ certification yet have no morals so most of the time they fix nothing or damage a computer much worse, forcing people to buy a new Windows PC from Best Buy.


RE: dumb employees
By Maxima2k2se on 9/9/2009 10:45:28 AM , Rating: 3
Went to BB against my better judgment to help my daughter buy a netbook for school. (she couldn't wait had to have it that day and it was her money what can I say lol) Once we picked it out and went to pay the Rep there highly advised that I pay 35 bucks for them to "optimize" the pc before we took it home. I asked him what "optimize" meant to him. He replied "we scan it for viruses and other malware and we can also defrag the hard drive for you so it runs super fast". I peed a little I laughed so hard. It is sad to think the vast majority probably fall for this crap.


RE: dumb employees
By jonmcc33 on 9/11/2009 7:31:34 PM , Rating: 2
If it is a brand new netbook how would it have any viruses out of the box? How would it have even had a chance to be fragmented either (as if defragging ever makes a difference anyway)?

I swear, I need to go to BB and act dumb and then insult the kid that tries to BS me. I'd probably get banned from the store.


By tlampen on 9/8/2009 10:43:00 PM , Rating: 3
I worked retail for 7 years while going through high school and college. We had reps from ALL our electronics vendors come in and hand out "training" on how to sell their products. Not one of them every told us how their products were inferior to their competitors. Businesses don't make money by telling people how good their competitors are. Why should microsoft or any other large company be held to any other standard? Thanks Jason Mick for enlightening us all on the common business practice called marketing!




By sprockkets on 9/9/2009 3:11:34 PM , Rating: 2
Guys in case you didn't understand the analogy, here it is. First, I'm not saying the first poster is wrong, but in how this applies to Best Buy. Why is Microsoft training Best Buy to downgrade Linux netbooks if they sell them?

That's like Honda going to Car Max to talk smack about Hyundai and say their warranties are crap or how their reliability is not up to Honda standards. It doesn't make sense because Car Max sells ALL kinds of used cars. It's in Car Max's best interest to up sell every cars advantages, and in fact, after shopping there with someone, they do.

I get amused that they targeted Linux. They didn't even bother with OSX. In fact, on one slide, they even mention iTunes as a selling point. Kudos to you Microsoft for seeing how ipod sales help you out!

No wait, Microsoft is trolling Macs too! Utter BS!!!

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/09/micr...


By Cheesew1z69 on 9/9/2009 9:08:21 AM , Rating: 2
Really? Business's don't make money by telling people how good their product is? Oh boy, I better inform the sales people within the company I work for! They might be devastated to know that telling people how good the product is, is going about it all wrong and they won't make money!

/sarcasm


By Cheesew1z69 on 9/9/2009 9:10:38 AM , Rating: 2
Never mind, I read that wrong, you said telling how good the competitors product is...

/drinks more caffeine


By tedrodai on 9/9/2009 10:32:04 AM , Rating: 2
...I agree, for the most part, and I definitely prefer windows to linux. BUT, you've gotta admit, that's funny material. It seems to me that it would be hard to write about the humorous nature of the training/marketing material without sounding a little holier-than-thou. I mean:

Windows has MANY!!! Linux has few, bah.
We didn't port one of our software products over to Linux!

None of it false, but...good for a laugh this morning.


Stretched a bit, but somewhat true
By deegee on 9/9/2009 1:56:43 AM , Rating: 5
I currently use Kubuntu, although not as often as I would like. It's just too frustrating in too many ways.

Modern Linux-based distros are getting better, and for certain uses they do well, such as web/mail servers, edu/gov use, certain vertical markets, desktop users who only want to surf/OpenOffice.

But for anyone who does a reasonable amount of work on their computer for common business use, gaming, audio/video and graphics, or your power-user/enthusiast desktop user, you just simply cannot get by without either dual-booting Linux/Windows or having a Windows box next to the Linux box.

Unfortunately, Linux's worst enemy isn't Microsoft (or Apple), it is the Linux community themselves.
They are stuck on GPL/Free and gotta-have-multi-distros which discourages the larger professional software developers from releasing Linux versions of their software.
Too many Linux apps are not completed and are done "just good enough", so no online help, or re-compile yourself for other distros, etc.
And the community is really bad on code-rot for the core distros, which is really a bad move. Look at all of the existing packagers, and Ubuntu are releasing still another new one so that even more packagers are left to rot in an unfinished state on my drive.
Searching for help online can be a real pain too, since there are so many versions and variants, so many forums, so much incorrect information, and too much command-line gibberish "fixes". Whenever I run into serious issues, I just live with it or wipe and reinstall, it's faster than spending hours searching online.

To compete on a larger scale with Windows and OSX, the community needs to waste less manpower on multi-distros (leave that to Novell, etc.), and concentrate on getting a single server/desktop/mobile distro out that actually betters Windows in every way (or at least many ways).

My post isn't a Linux flame, I like a lot of things about Kubuntu, especially the UI customizability and features. But it suffers compared to Windows for professional apps, for a wide variety of app types, for file format support, and it really needs a multi-threaded UI like Windows.

I would agree that Linux is not currently at the state where I would recommend it for the average household family PC.

FYI: I've never had issues with Linux hardware/driver support [yet] (knock on wood).




By HotFoot on 9/9/2009 3:27:13 AM , Rating: 3
I've used Linux a bit - actually it runs my HTPC and I've dabbled at trying different versions as my main OS on my desktop as well. My experience has been much like yours.

Setting up, well, anything just takes longer. My HTPC has an onboard ATi graphics (690G chipset I think). I want to run a DVI-HDMI cable to my 37" HDTV. I had ENDLESS problems getting this to work. Honestly, for the value of my time, the easy road is simply to shell out a very small amount of money for an OEM copy of XP that will just run everything I need out of the box.

This is the problem - Linux isn't built for home users. It was written for, and by, engineers and comp sci people. It's made to be an environment where you can get into it and make any changes you want. It's not meant to be extremely easy and user-friendly. And you know, most Linux users I know prefer it that way.

Honestly, the only reason I've used Linux is to 'fight the good fight'. I really like the concept behind free open-source software. However, I gave up long ago and now for the friends of mine that continue to spend countless hours setting up Linux on their machines, I just ask them why they spend so much time setting up a tool instead of actually using it? For them, it's more about the hobby and what they can learn along the way. For me, I learned a lot, for sure, but then I realised I want to USE my computer not just configure it over and over and over...


So
By SavagePotato on 9/8/2009 10:43:06 PM , Rating: 5
Whether it is sleazy or not, it's true. The average computer user wouldn't just be negatively impacted by using linux they would be blown out of the water and left crying on the side of the road in a puddle of their own urine.

Regular people, even otherwise intelligent people seem to have issues with their brain shutting off when using a computer. Purposefully in many cases.

In my opinion 80% of the population is too stupid to use Windows much less Linux. What is needed are computers with big bright fisher price buttons that can be mashed with an ill aimed ignorance guided fist.

An operating system with four options "type stuff" "facebook" "chain email jokes" "music" that would about do it. Just fill the desktop with 4 big color coded squares and that's all they need. Maybe throw in an "infect this computer with spyware so I can ruin some technicians day" button for good measure.

Oh and yeah another Jason Mick flamebait Microsoft jab tabloid extravaganza.




RE: So
By achintya on 9/9/2009 3:32:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whether it is sleazy or not, it's true. The average computer user wouldn't just be negatively impacted by using linux they would be blown out of the water and left crying on the side of the road in a puddle of their own urine.

Regular people, even otherwise intelligent people seem to have issues with their brain shutting off when using a computer. Purposefully in many cases.

In my opinion 80% of the population is too stupid to use Windows much less Linux.

Please give this man a 6.


Windows/Linux Security
By nilepez on 9/8/2009 11:00:26 PM , Rating: 2
Just because Linux isn't targeted by malware groups doesn't mean it's more secure. Linux would have to be significantly less secure to justify the attacking the OS.

1. the users are typically more tech savvy, and thus they're far more likely to practice safe computing.
2. there are so few linux desktop users, that there's very little bang for the buck.

I don't know if Linux is actually safer or not. At one time, it was generally believed that OS X was secure, because of it's BSD roots, but there have been mroe than a few security drive by exploits that could give remote attacks full control of that OS.

Linux users (and OS X users) are certainly less likely to be attacked, but that doesn't mean those Operating systems are more secure.




RE: Windows/Linux Security
By sprockkets on 9/8/2009 11:03:31 PM , Rating: 2
What are these drive by exploits you refer to?


RE: Windows/Linux Security
By Jalek on 9/9/2009 4:28:27 AM , Rating: 2
Almost all have been attacks through Flash, not the OS itself.

Since Macromedia can't secure their software, it's Apple's fault.


RE: Windows/Linux Security
By themaster08 on 9/9/2009 5:50:33 AM , Rating: 1
Adobe acquired Macromedia back in 2005, so blame Adobe.

I absolutely loathe Flash. It's slow, buggy and insecure. I can't wait for the day I can uninstall that crap from my computer.


No Linux there ...
By armagedon on 9/8/2009 10:02:25 PM , Rating: 3
Strange, they don't sell anything with Linux at BB here (cdn). Even Linux netbooks have disappeared. It's not that a consumer can buy a PC with no OS on it there. So who are they trying to convince ?




RE: No Linux there ...
By nilepez on 9/9/2009 9:23:25 PM , Rating: 2
I really don't get why MS is doing this. Those that are likely to use Linux are unlikely to be influenced by a BBY employee. The rest are almost irrelevant, because they weren't looking for Linux in the first place.

It's like someone walks in looking at Toyota Camrys and the salesman starts says Corvettes and Kias are crap. Who care's if it's true or not, virtually nobody is thinking, "should I get a camry, an Kia or a Vette?"


No way
By Zingam on 9/9/2009 4:21:23 AM , Rating: 1
Linux is in no way alternative to Windows. And it will never be. Its concept may be nice for many jobs but it is no way near to be a great general purpose desktop OS.

Let's face it. Linux in all its incarnations and iterations is older than Windows. Yes! I don't take into account those Win 3.x- shells. They don't count. They were not an OS.

What the world needs a real, new, modern alternative and not some 40 year old concept patched up to meet modern desktop standards. In the same way I would say that Windows is also too overburdened by old heritage and bad design decisions from the past.

It'd be great to have something new and fresh!




RE: No way
By Jalek on 9/9/2009 4:40:42 AM , Rating: 3
You mean like running a Java-based bootstrap into a browser shell? That didn't work out so well for anyone involved.

Next up, ChromeOS, which MS will also crush before it gets anywhere, apparently by attacking Google directly.

New and fresh won't be marketable, it would have to run all of the Windows stuff out of the box, probably in an emulation or virtual machine using whatever degree of API information MS chooses to reveal.


Simple error at the end there
By BioRebel on 9/8/2009 10:08:30 PM , Rating: 1
# of malware attacks does not mean an OS is more secure.
If you compared # of known unpatched security holes THEN you can compare which OS is more secure. However you also have to take into account that not as many people are looking for Linux holes.




By karielash on 9/8/2009 10:37:53 PM , Rating: 2

Yeah but the ones that are looking generally know what the hell they are doing.


By magneticfield on 9/9/2009 4:19:00 AM , Rating: 3
I use Kubuntu at work, I'm a database admin/developer. For this kind of usage, a Linux distro is just perfect. The only issue I have with it is the sound, it doesn't work, but I don't need it anyway.
So I gave it a try at home, on my Celeron 2GHz/1GB laptop.
I can live with having to read manuals, forums, howto's and working with the terminal, but my install (ubuntu 9.04) had manifested some bugs, and I've seen those bugs in ubuntu 7 and 8 also. The thing that got me off was that the bugs were already reported, but could never be fixed.
It's another myth about Linux / open source: they say that this huge community is always ready to fix anything fast, which simply isn't true.
And also, technical support from the community is often cryptic or limited to "RT(F)M" acronym.

I hate to say it, if you want a good OS, you need to buy win7 these days. Except if all you want to do with your computer is serious stuff related to IT infrastructure (db admin, routing, hosting etc).

Perhaps I wouldn't see those bugs if I had a better laptop, who knows why they can't reproduce them. Buying a new laptop so I can install and properly run Linux doesn't sounds good to me... so far.




Why?
By ersts on 9/8/2009 10:27:07 PM , Rating: 2
I thought Best Buy didn't sell any Linux netbooks, and CompUSA sold like two, and one of them, the HP 2133, is gone (thankfully).




Is this really surprising?
By bigboxes on 9/9/2009 6:12:14 AM , Rating: 2
And is this really news? I mean, it's not a matter if Microsoft is telling the truth. That really doesn't matter. Best Buy is in the business of selling products. Microsoft is one of those products. When Best Buy sells a PC with Windows (or just a copy of Windows) they make money. That's the bottom line. The average customer at Best Buy can barely understand how to set up a Windows computer, let alone learn how to be a Linux uber nerd. It's Windows ease of use that brought the mainstream adoptation of the PC. All those tech guys are not going to Best Buy to argue with their staff at how much better and safer Ubuntu is over Windows. The same can be said for most Anandtech readers. We build our own Windows boxes.

No, Best Buy is in the business to make money. They are there to feed the masses. If you look for Best Buy, Fry's, or Wal-Mart for your tech advice then you get what you deserve.




Why go after Linux?
By StraightCashHomey on 9/9/2009 7:51:36 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but in my opinion, the people that use Linux are generally pretty computer savvy. Linux users aren't going to see these ads are suddenly "realize" that they're making the wrong choice. I'm sure they're already well aware of the advantages and disadvantages of whichever OS they're running.

On top of that, why would you even give publicity (even if it's bad) to an OS that you're already WAY ahead of in marketshare? I would think that any publicity would be good publicity for Linux at this point.




By Ferdinator on 9/9/2009 11:22:02 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft instructing the Best Buy Nerd Herd how to trash Linux isn't slimy disrespect. It's just Microsoft striving for parity. Redmond has been trashing Windows for years, and they just want to level the playing field.

(C'mon, you Ballmer sycophants, let me hear you squeal!)




printers
By coldmm803 on 9/9/2009 4:19:02 PM , Rating: 2
microsoft OS's may support many printers but Vista and Windows 7 do not support my 5 year old HP all in one but Kubuntu does.

i think that linux is actually fine for the basic pc user who just uses internet, music, videos, and document creating (word, excel..). As for games, you can get all the pre-installed microsoft games on linux.




Misleading presentation style
By rbclemen on 9/10/2009 2:34:09 AM , Rating: 2
The real problem with this "education" program is that it is not presenting real data. It uses comparisons of non-equivalent options and unrepresentative graphs to express comparisons that have no actual research attached to them. This is a textbook case of "FUD" mongering.

As a specific example, in the entry on "Printer and Scanner compatibility" they use a bar graph filled to 100% for the Windows 7 option, and 25% for the Linux option. They also use the colour red, which is instinctively seen (in western society at least) in conjunction with warnings or danger.

Do they really want me to believe that 100% of printers and scanners work with Windows 7, while only 25% of them work with Linux? The same for music devices like Cameras, iPods and MP3 players? They use entirely subjective terms like "Many" and "Few" (and when did "Many" start to mean 100%) which are meaningless. If more than 25% of the MP3 players on the market can work with Linux, then this graph is a specific misrepresentation of the facts.

I have a scanner that stopped working with Windows 2000. Drivers were no longer supported. Does Windows 7 support the scanner? If not, then using a graph that represents 100% compatability is an outright lie. Do they mean 100% of currently available hardware? Because support for old equipment has always been a niche for Linux.

Of course Linux won't come bundled with Live Essentials. But it can communicate with Live messenger users, send hotmail users email, and post pictures to photo websites, or synchronise folders between multiple computers, automatically post to blogs, and pretty much everything else that you can do with Live Essentials. That is like saying the Ferarri is better than a BMW because a BMW doesn't have the Ferarri horse logo on it.

Authorised support, if you purchase a computer that has the OS pre-installed, is the store you bought it from. Unless they are changing their EULA from previous versions, if you call and give an OEM licence number they will tell you to call whomever you bought it from. If you buy Ubuntu Linux from Canonical Inc. you have access to Ubuntu authorised support. If you download Windows or Linux for free then you don't get authorised support from either. But you can buy support for the Linux you got for free.

As for the slide about safety, It specifically states that there are no guarantees that Linux security updates will be created. Can anybody show me where Microsoft guarantees that security updates for Windows will be created? That is a very specific claim.

Linux users are not on their own. The companies that produce Linux distributions have real reasons to fix the vulnerabilities in their software, just like Microsoft does. The difference is that not only is the user not alone, but the distro makers are not alone either. A vulnerability fix in one is automatically shared with all of them. And if no company steps up to make a fix, then individuals in the community that have the knowledge already have all the sources and tools they need to fix it themselves. Attempting to fix Windows on your own involves tools and knowledge that are in direct violation of the EULA.

But they specifically name a lack of a guarantee from the Linux camp. That must imply that they offer one. Where is it. It quite specifically has stated in the EULA that they are not responsible for the damage done due to the failure of their security measures. In actuality they might actually include that guarantee in corporate contracts with large customers. But the average end user will not see it.

Depicting statistical information that doesn't actually exist, making comparisons of in-equivalent items and in some cases re-defining terms to suit your goals is quite clearly a deliberate attempt to spread false--or at the very least exagerated--information, and drawing conclusions on behalf of the reader based on them, is FUD. Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. A common tactic used by Microsoft and the "research firms" that they often commission to "discover" the results that they need in order to support their marketing schemes




They didn't forget Mac either...
By flurazepam on 9/11/2009 10:38:34 AM , Rating: 2
...in their training regime.

Here: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/09/08/micr...




It's all true
By EricMartello on 9/13/2009 1:17:45 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing in those training materials is false or misleading. Windows IS the best desktop OS for the average user and even for most power users. I use Vista now, I have some servers where I use Linux (linux is great for its intended purpose), but why would I want to cripple my desktop PC using Linux with all its limitations when Windows does everything so much better and has far better support?

Linux, by comparison, is on the trailing end playing catchup...although it has improved quite some bit over the last few years.

If I were selling computers to general consumers I would not even talk about linux as an option unless they specifically asked about it.

By the way, this comparison could easily replace Linux with Mac OS and still be true. :)




Windows is FREE as well!!!
By edantes on 9/14/2009 10:23:39 AM , Rating: 2
The usual BestBuy employee working in the computer aisle is very well versed on the ways of downloading a very official looking Chinese or Russian copy of Windows.

Is that in the next screen of Microsoft sales manual?




By edantes on 9/14/2009 11:08:43 AM , Rating: 2
1. Mac OSX is a big hit --- not Windows either.

2. Handhelds computers and smart phones will soon be the most commonly used computing devices.

3. No one cares what OS a Kindle runs.

Consumer market will be buying single purpose computers built into their phones, TV set top boxes, whatever. Only the hobbyist will care for OS and drivers, And those might as well use Linux.




BestBuy itself runs LINUX
By Solarex on 9/14/2009 1:00:16 PM , Rating: 2
Are you kidding me! www.bestbuy.com itself runs Linux. What's next? M$ will throw FUD at BestBuy to move their online business to Windows?
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http:/...




Since when...
By CrazyBernie on 9/9/2009 12:29:02 AM , Rating: 1
... does a salesperson need instruction on how to bullshit the customer? Isn't that how they got the job to begin with?




linx vs win
By samuellsk on 9/9/2009 11:11:59 AM , Rating: 1
i dont take a sides mostly, but windows has gone from good to crapy, every new version they change everything, so you cannot adapt os to your needs, you need to adapt to the new os which i dont do. I wana change a look ? bam, there are a lot of desktop platforms for linx.

And about dirvers, just a 2 cents, i wanna see how your uber duper cool win7 in gold finds acpi driver, its totaly common for a few years, and win7 does not have a clue whats that.

And to those pics win vs linx , gash wake up. Whoever is going to buy a pc in BB or similar, do not need to choose between win7 and linux. Just cuth the choice. That kind of person do not need to choose between 2 oses. He does not even know that there are other oses.

To comparment:
Cameras,ipod,mp3... whoever is using linx, does not need such a crap.
Printing and scaning.... just LOL on this one.
Software compatibility.... hellou, you are using linx. Only win has a problem with compatibilty.
Messanger, live.... whoever is using that is a MORON.
Video chat on iM net..... same goes here as above.

So what has left ? nothing. Becouse normal people dont buy in BB, and most likely in a service shop where they give proper advice, if you goona use XP, vis, or win7. They/we do not advice linx (becouse people are simple and need simple os). Linux is for geeks. I dont see a point why ms is trying to be compared with linx.

"Leaked screenshots from a Best Buy and Microsoft's Windows training program indicate that the company is "educating" employees on why Linux is horrible. (Source: ZDNet)"
Linx in my eyes never was and never will be for normal people. They are too dumb to use it. You just need to give them stright hallway with no doors or windows, just straight way, no chooses.




Proof of what illegal ops can achieve
By Beenthere on 9/8/09, Rating: -1
RE: Proof of what illegal ops can achieve
By Swamp on 9/9/09, Rating: 0
By damianrobertjones on 9/9/2009 3:34:05 AM , Rating: 3
"Not paying MS for a crappy OS that crashes and doesnt work right 90% of the time."

Then why am I sitting here at my desk with no problems to speak of, day after day, with all pcs running windows? Last year, as my boss stated as he checks, we never had one day downtime and none this year either... all running Win2003 server.


RE: Proof of what illegal ops can achieve
By deegee on 9/9/2009 3:06:34 PM , Rating: 2
Linux/Ubuntu fanboi's do no service to the community at all.
Comments like yours drive people away because they think that all people who use Linux distros are a**es.

I have been using Linux distros for years and currently run Kubuntu, and people who post comments like yours even p*ss me off.

Re: MSIE
There is nothing wrong with MS bundling IE. Look at the recent EU vs MS. With no bundled browser, how will you get onto the 'net to download FF or GC or Opera, etc.?
Ubuntu/Kubuntu and the other distros bundle a browser. I have to go online or use the packager to download another. What's the difference? All OS's do the same thing, MS is no different. Perhaps Kubuntu should be fined because I like FF better and that should be bundled instead.
I have IE, FF, GC and Op on my surfing system. IE works the best of them all.
I have Konqueror and FF on my Kubuntu system, and prefer FF.
So your comment on this gets a "who cares" from me.

Re: MS Crappy OS.
Sorry, you are 100% wrong on this. I have been doing pro corporate IT for over 15 years, and running around 500 Windows boxes that entire time there has been virtually no OS issues. Even all of the Windows servers downtime has only been approximately 3 hours in 15 years, and that was due to a hardware failure (P.S.) and not Windows.
So all of this Windows=crappy OS is pure B.S.

Your blatant fanboi'ism posts simply turns people off from Linux.


By rbclemen on 9/10/2009 2:56:19 AM , Rating: 2
The bundled browser issue should have died a long time ago, when the contenders all realised that the prize they quested after had no value.

It shouldn't matter who provided the browser software that you receive for free from whatever source you get it from (disk, internet, OS bundle) Nobody made any money off the browsers. The "prize" was the opportunity to control the user's browsing experience. By controling the initially loaded page, the search engine options, and being able to access the specific page requests (snooping, as it were) that the user browsed, it was hoped that influence of that nature would lead to alternative revenue opportunities, i.e. ad revenue and cross-promotion income from preferred partners.

The browser wars are defunct now because Microsoft won, then discovered that their prize was worthless. People don't care what page their browser starts on. They chose the search engine they want to use (and does anyone ever use the recently re-named Microsoft Live Search engine?)

All this happened before the introduction of the open-source Mozilla project, which was spawned from the opening of the Netscape code base by AOL (if I recall this correctly--could be wrong here). The argument now is over standards compliance. MS FrontPage doesn't create websites that follow the W3C conventions that it should, and IE is designed to render FrontPage sites better than a standards-compliant browser does. This is an argument for another place tho.

And I guess as an unrelated point I want to point out that Microsoft bundles IE, while distros--tho usually giving preference to one, make them all available in their repositories. Nothing more to say on that topic, as it doesn't affect the statements above, but there it is.


By Pythias on 9/10/2009 1:00:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Linux/Ubuntu fanboi's do no service to the community at all. Comments like yours drive people away because they think that all people who use Linux distros are a**es.


This was pretty much my experience in the various community driven "linux support" forums.

People who derive self-importance from what OS they use are laughable.


Better Device Support
By hybridr6 on 9/8/09, Rating: -1
RE: Better Device Support
By Motoman on 9/8/2009 10:13:10 PM , Rating: 5
...you want to make any bets about which OS ships with more device drivers, Windows or Linux? Get a grip.


RE: Better Device Support
By hybridr6 on 9/8/2009 10:25:00 PM , Rating: 2
One, I didnt say Linux shipped with more drivers than Windows. Two I said "In my opinion," meaning that in my experience I have had to install less drivers in Linux than in Windows. For instance in Windows 7 I have to download and install my motherboard, video card, and sound card drivers. While in Linux (Debian, Ubuntu, and Fedora) all of these devices had drivers installed out of the box.

Constructive criticisms/comments welcomed.


RE: Better Device Support
By Mitch101 on 9/9/2009 12:56:33 AM , Rating: 5
I'm not sure what Motherboard/Chipset you are using but my Windows 7 Install got every driver on the first shot right. It got even the ones I was expecting to search for. Drivers like my video capture card, my HD Audio chipset, My Scanner/Printer, Video Card etc. I did not have to download a single driver but I did because I like the ATI control panel. Windows 7 was the most complete driver install I have ever had with a Windows OS. I have also had good linux installs however the drivers are usually very generic in nature and in order to take full advantage of some products like video capture cards you still need to download the manufactures drivers for your specific device and OS even Windows. I have to admit I like the HD audio drivers Windows 7 installed over the manufacturers. I did download the Video drivers from ATI because I like ATI's control panel. Again Windows 7 was a perfect install even if I didn't want the ATI control panel.

I like Linux but lets be real the average user can get by installing a driver for a Windows device but the average user is completely clueless on getting Linux drivers installed. Linux has come a long way but if you have any driver issue in Linux the average user doesn't know where to begin. The Linux community is very supportive but these users have no idea what half of them are talking about when they get a good reply on how to correct the issue.

I will admit the average Linux person is smarter at the OS and PC than the Average Windows user because they need to be.

Security I have said this a thousand times. Any PC is only as secure as the person operating it.

With the above said and not getting into a war of which OS is better as both have pluses and minuses I think Microsoft teaching BestBuy employees how to downtalk Linux is a waste of time. Anyone who has a clue about Linux isn't going to listen to a BestBuy about an OS. I just don't see the point because I cant see any BestBuy sales person able to sway someone's opinion. Besides how many people are walking into BestBuy even talking about Linux? If someone walks into BestBuy talking Linux they are doing it just to torture the poor BestBuy employee for their lack of computer knowledge.


RE: Better Device Support
By Motley on 9/9/2009 2:51:15 AM , Rating: 3
I have to agree with this as well. For Windows 7, everything came up without a single manual driver install. I did however update the video drivers because they tweaked performance in one of the games I play. I also installed drivers for my printer/scanner because it's a network printer and wasn't detected (Not a UPnP device), and I like the utility software that comes with it (Auto import of documents as PDF, picures as TIFFs without touching anything on my computer at all). I also installed the intel raid driver stuff so that I can get notifications of any failed drives in the raid in GUI portion of windows and not just during BIOS boot up (Which I reboot like once a month and I rarely sit and watch it when I do).

Trying to get linux to do any of that is pretty much impossible. I could spend weeks tinkering and still not getting the same functionality. I've tried.


RE: Better Device Support
By wushuktl on 9/9/2009 6:54:10 AM , Rating: 2
you're missing another group of customers.

this is for the guy/gal who walks into best buy and asks the employee "i heard of something called linux and someone once told me that it's better than windows, can i get linux on my computer instead?" then the employee can give that person can say everything in that microsoft "teaching aid" and be done with it. that customer who had no idea what linux is before walking into the store now understands that linux just isn't for him/her (which you can't deny that it isn't) and should stick with an OS like windows or mac


RE: Better Device Support
By Jalek on 9/9/2009 10:41:00 AM , Rating: 2
I was at a car dealership and was told that I shouldn't buy a pickup, but needed a station wagon instead.

I was certainly glad that salesperson was there to tell me what I wanted. Yeah, I haven't been back there and that was many, many cars (and a few pickups) ago.


RE: Better Device Support
By FITCamaro on 9/9/2009 7:55:37 AM , Rating: 2
Are you f*cking serious? You're complaining that an OS that isn't even released yet didn't come with the drivers for your motherboard, video card, and sound card? While many manufacturers have developed Windows 7 drivers, that doesn't ensure that Microsoft included them on the install.


RE: Better Device Support
By ersts on 9/8/2009 10:30:13 PM , Rating: 3
Tried Win7 on a Dell 700m. No driver available for the Intel 855GM video card. Makes no sense because Vista has it.

The not even beta of OpenSuSE 11.2? Full 3d support out of the box for it.

As with anything in life, your mileage may vary.


RE: Better Device Support
By B3an on 9/8/09, Rating: 0
RE: Better Device Support
By ersts on 9/8/2009 11:43:34 PM , Rating: 2
I did. It installed, then it rebooted to the same 640x480 (might have been 800x600, but it didn't fill my 1280x720 screen, that's for sure) resolution, with no way of making it go higher.

There might will be a driver for it when Win7 is released, but I'm willing to bet Dell won't bother making it. Intel doesn't have a driver for it either, and I had to get the driver from Dell for Vista.


RE: Better Device Support
By UNHchabo on 9/8/2009 10:37:50 PM , Rating: 2
Motoman, most Linux distros come with drivers for just about every piece of hardware ever made.

The exceptions are mostly companies who purposely hide their hardware implementations, making the development of third-party drivers extremely difficult. As said above, this problem is common among wifi cards.

Additionally there's usually some wait time after hardware appears before a driver shows up, but once again that's usually because the manufacturer makes driver development difficult, so the community has to figure out how the hardware is implemented in order to write a driver.

If you take old hardware though (maybe a printer or network card from 1997), chances are you'll be able to get it to work right away in any modern Linux distro (Ubuntu 9.04 or openSUSE 11.1), but chances are there's NO driver available for any version of Windows past Win98.


RE: Better Device Support
By ioannis on 9/9/2009 7:39:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
which OS ships with more device drivers


The answer is Linux.

However, the ones missing are those that most users will be noticing, since these are for some scanners, back in the old days all winmodems, and wifi cards (though not so much these days)

And as many have already said here, if linux supports a device, it ships with the driver. All drivers are part of the kernel (exceptions are the binary blobs for GPUs). Windows might have drivers for many devices, but many of them you need to go fetch them and install them yourself.


RE: Better Device Support
By mrsentraser on 9/8/2009 11:07:48 PM , Rating: 2
You've obviously never tried to get a QAM tuner working under Myth Tv or any of the various Myth'd linux builds. Driver support is terrible, functionality of most cards is reduced. Linux is crap for a media-center pc. The Hauppauge, ATI, and Pinacle all perform great in Windows Media Center without configuring drivers at the terminal. Even a crappy K-world tuner works with minimal configuration in Windows. Mythbuntu and the other myth'd linux builds completely FAIL at integrating tv tuners.

They're average for watching streamed content too.


RE: Better Device Support
By hybridr6 on 9/8/2009 11:18:01 PM , Rating: 1
You still use a TV tuner?


RE: Better Device Support
By sprockkets on 9/8/2009 11:19:17 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you.

Although, the Hagepauge HD PVR is supported quite well.


RE: Better Device Support
By HinderedHindsight on 9/9/2009 1:27:55 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You've obviously never tried to get a QAM tuner working under Myth Tv or any of the various Myth'd linux builds. Driver support is terrible, functionality of most cards is reduced.


I find this line of reasoning a bit funny, if not ironic, as all the Vista defenders/apologists blamed the hardware manufacturers (especially when talking about video drivers) for the faulty drivers in Vista rather than Microsoft.

So help me understand something here- if Microsoft has an issue with a piece of hardware, it's the manufacturers fault. If a Linux distro has an issue, it's Linux's fault? Sorry, Microsoft can't have it both ways.

For the record, I've gotten Ubuntu running flawlessly with minimal effort most hardware that I've interacted with. The only reason why I have more work on the Windows side is that even beloved Vista doesn't come with all the drivers I usually need on a given laptop or desktop.

The notable exception in terms of my experience with Ubuntu's level of driver support was my ATi Rage Theater 650; which coincidentally did not work flawlessly in Windows XP or Vista on my platform, and when I chose to go with a WinXP/MediaPortal implementation for PVR functionality, it took a lot of driver configuration (partially due to the way Direct Show worked) to get it functioning properly.


RE: Better Device Support
By Motley on 9/9/2009 2:31:23 AM , Rating: 2
See you are trying to care about where the blame lays. The consumer typically doesn't care whose fault it is, just that they can't get it to work. No, poor hardware drivers aren't the OS vendors fault (unless the drivers are part of the OS itself/compiled in). But saying it's not linux's fault the hardware doesn't have good drivers is irrelevant when trying to decide if it's better to go windows or linux.


RE: Better Device Support
By FITCamaro on 9/9/2009 8:05:02 AM , Rating: 2
Actually if you read his post, he does not say Linux is terrible. He says driver support is terrible. That doesn't blame Linux. It blames companies for not releasing drivers.

Whereas in the Microsoft example everyone, including probably yourself, blamed solely Microsoft for the lack of drivers or poorly written drivers even though they didn't write them.


RE: Better Device Support
By Pythias on 9/10/2009 1:12:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whereas in the Microsoft example everyone, including probably yourself, blamed solely Microsoft for the lack of drivers or poorly written drivers even though they didn't write them.


Its amazing how many people overlook this.


RE: Better Device Support
By Makaveli on 9/9/2009 7:59:43 PM , Rating: 2
hmm I have a Ati Tv wonder pro 650 and it has worked perfectly since day 1 in Vista. Not sure what happend on your end. And my box is a fairly old Nforce4 with a Dualcore AMD opteron!


RE: Better Device Support
By cornelius785 on 9/9/2009 10:27:58 AM , Rating: 2
I have a atsc/qam/ntsc (dvico dual digital pcie) tuner for my mythtv (yum install on fedora 11) box. I haven't had an issue with it for atsc usage, never tried QAM since I use an antennae. I can't comment on linux vs windows performance for the tuner, so I don't know if it would tune faster or possibly lock on to weaker signals. For NTSC support, "it a work in progress" since more than a year. I say a "work in progress" since the ONLY progress that has been posted to the mailing list is some guy getting s-video/composite to work partially.


"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch











botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki